I wasn't being all flippant. It is my understanding that not showing up for jury duty is not one of the more pursued crimes on the planet.

You get the duty notice, you toss it in the trash, and there's about a 99% chance you'll never hear a single thing about it.

That said ... I'd just go to jury duty. Sounds like a cool experience to me. I was called once when I lived in SF. I sat in a room for three hours listening to the lawyers ask other people questions. After they went through about 15 people, they had their 12 and the rest of us (something like 30 or 40) were all excused.

And here's a little anecdote about that day: the case was something about a car accident and the plaintiff was suing for medical bills to cover knee-reconstruction. One of the initial people being voir dired went off on a speech about how she was an OR nurse for the most prominent knee surgeon in the city. She was collecting her shit to leave as if she was sure she would be excused ... and she wasn't. The look on her face was priceless.

Tell them that you've been eagerly awaiting being selected for a jury. You can tell when a person is lying just by listening to how they talk. Crime shows are just about all you watch. You LOVE crime shows!!! You can always tell who did it. Before they even get on the stand, you can tell someone's guilty just by listening to their lawyer. Lawyers ALWAYS act a certain way when they're hiding the truth. They don't even have to say a word, you can tell just by the look on their face.

Sometimes when you go to the mall you just like to sit on a bench at look at the people to decide which ones are shoplifting. You saw some woman in the supermarket aisle the other day and you could just tell that she was peeling off price stickers and putting them on more expensive items. She had twitchy eyes.

There was this person where you work that got caught stealing office supplies. You knew he was bad news as soon as they hired him. His vocabulary wasn't good. The people with bad grammar are almost always up to no good. You can just tell. It's a gift. You hope you get to be jury foreman because you won't be shy about arguing the case with them. You and your significant other always argue all the way through the TV show about who did it. And you're never wrong. It's a gift.

Because a trial might require more than the allotted 2 days. I simply can't afford to miss that much work. I know everyone says that but we just had major layoffs at work, and I have some new responsibilities that I need training for. The person who is training me will be departing Friday.

Because a trial might require more than the allotted 2 days. I simply can't afford to miss that much work. I know everyone says that but we just had major layoffs at work, and I have some new responsibilities that I need training for. The person who is training me will be departing Friday.

Tell it to the judge.

I'm not sure if that would get you off or not, but at least it's a legitimate reason, and you won't have to lie or "trick" anyone.

Because a trial might require more than the allotted 2 days. I simply can't afford to miss that much work. I know everyone says that but we just had major layoffs at work, and I have some new responsibilities that I need training for. The person who is training me will be departing Friday.

You can explain that and get a delay. It's a totally legit reason for one. I was called once before an overseas business trip and the judge excused me and put me on a list to be contacted again in three months.

You should talk to the courthouse. The situation is likely different in each county, but when I had jury duty (three days) the guy in charge said so many people simply ditch jury duty that if you make the least bit of effort to serve your obligations that they usually work with you. Call and ask if you can go next week instead and explain why. The guy said even if you skip miss your assigned date, go in the next week and it will all get sorted out.

Of course, you likely don't have the same rules as we do, but I would guess that if you skipped out this week and showed up next week, "Ooops! Sorry, I got the weeks mixed up." They are less likely to be mean to you. You would have, after all, at least have made an effort and didn't simply ditch.

But when the lawyers question you, be very opinionated. Especially about the topic of the trial. They want jurors who are blank slates, open-minded, malleable, reasonable. Be dogmatic and inflexible, but NOT nasty or rude.

For example, I was in a group to be interviewed for a jury. It was a DWI case. When the lawyer asked me, "How do you feel about current penalties for DWI?" I said, "They're not nearly strong enough. They should lock those people up and throw away the key." I WANTED to be selected for the jury because I DO feel strongly about DWI. That answer got me excused so fast your head would spin.

Another juror was excused because he owned a liquor store.

I'm not suggesting you lie when you're questioned, but search inside yourself and find some strong opinion that you already have about the trial subject and express it enthusiastically. Do not come across as neutral and reasonable. Neutral and reasonable is what they're looking for.

__________________It is the job of editorial writers to come down from the hills after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
Murray Kempton

I am a paralegal and have sat in on a few trials with the attorney I work for (criminal defense). First off, in my county, financial hardship, if you don't get paid for jury duty, will almost always get you excused. Just make it clear that it is indeed a hardship and you can't afford your bills if you sit on a jury. However, I realize this is different in every county.

If you stick around past the hardship point my suggestion is to pay very close attention. I realize it will be boring, but the attorneys can typically preempt a certain number of jurors for any reason without stating it. Watch who is getting the boot (especially the firsts to go), mimic them, but not obviously so. Try not to be obvious about it (most people fail at this) but listen to the voire dire questions and lean heavily one way or another. Have a strong opinion (but not obviously trying to kicked off the jury strong) about this. The attorney I work tends to get a lot of facts of the case in through voire. A voir dire questions that may seem innocuous, likely isn't. Attorneys are typically limited in what they can ask and how long they can spend on questioning. You can use this as well to feel out what the attorneys are looking for.

I will caution, I have many times see people think they can get off the jury just by being opinionated. A typical transaction:

Prospective Juror: I believe that if they were arrested they are guilty.
Attorney: Are you capable of setting aside that bias in order to complete your duty as a fair and impartial juror?
Prospective Juror: No
Attorney: Why is that?
Prospective Juror: Uh...Cause I can't.

The attempt to get through jury duty is pretty obvious at this point. Also, typically we tend to shy away from people who are driven by emotion (if that makes sense) we like people who are logical thinkers and pay attention to how people answer question with that in mind. Though this may vary by attorney or by the case at hand.

Overall, I would say there is no sure fire way o get kicked off, most people don't want to serve on a jury so keep in mind that ninety percent of the people around you are also trying to get off the jury and the attorneys are quite used to dealing with this and seeing through it. So again, pay close attention a craft you escape plan accordingly.

Strickly as an anecdotal: My father was called for jury duty and really wanted to sit on the case he was called for. He asked me if I had any tips (I would love my dad on a jury so I didn't feel guilty giving him advice, he is very even keeled and typically thinks things through). I told him to think out his answers and answer the voir dire questions completely, but stay as neutral as possible.

The prosecution asked if my father owns a firearm, and how he felt about the use of firearms.

ETA:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan

Wear an American flag pin in your lapel, and the defense won't want you.

Regards,
Shodan

I realize you are joking, but, I highly doubt this would effect my boss's opinion in whether to chose anyone in the slightest. He is highly patriotic.

He told them that he used to keep a rifle locked in the back bedroom for when the revolution came, but had since gotten rid of it. He was completely bummed when the prosecution booted him.

Well I just got excused from the first courtroom. The trial will take several weeks. The judge asked if anyone had pre-arranged vacation plans. Luckily, I have my annual Vegas trip booked for the 30th. Now I'm back in the jury lounge. Waiting. And waiting.

But when the lawyers question you, be very opinionated. Especially about the topic of the trial. They want jurors who are blank slates, open-minded, malleable, reasonable. Be dogmatic and inflexible, but NOT nasty or rude.

For example, I was in a group to be interviewed for a jury. It was a DWI case. When the lawyer asked me, "How do you feel about current penalties for DWI?" I said, "They're not nearly strong enough. They should lock those people up and throw away the key." I WANTED to be selected for the jury because I DO feel strongly about DWI. That answer got me excused so fast your head would spin.

Another juror was excused because he owned a liquor store.

I'm not suggesting you lie when you're questioned, but search inside yourself and find some strong opinion that you already have about the trial subject and express it enthusiastically. Do not come across as neutral and reasonable. Neutral and reasonable is what they're looking for.

Prosecutor here. I hate that.

We WANT people who are interested in enforcing the laws and serving the community. It bugs me when people go overboard with their statements so that they get excused. You realize that by doing that you're stepping aside to put people with lesser moral compunctions on the jury, people who are more likely to let the drunk off and put him back on the street in your city, aren't you? Does that truly serve your interests?

What bugs me most are the people who want to appear so morally solid and so much better than other people that they completely sabotage themselves. Happens all the time in sex crime cases involving children. We start talking about punishment, and someone says, "If it involves a child, I could never give anything less than the maximum." And then everyone starts agreeing, because no one wants to appear soft on crimes against children. But if you're not willing to consider the full range of punishment, if you can't imagine some set of circumstances for which you would at least consider the minimum (not even actually give it, but just consider it), then you can't serve on the jury. And we lose scores of great jurors because of that, excused for cause, because they can't consider the full range of punishment.

And it's not that hard to imagine such a scenario. Let's say that there's a couple of kids, she just turned 19, he's gonna turn 16 in three days. They've dated a long time, and this one night they take it too far. The boy's mom doesn't like her and wants her prosecuted. Charges are filed, and they both run away. Now, it's years later, she's 25, he's 22, they're married, and they have two kids together. The law has finally caught up with them due to her outstanding warrant. In a situation like that, maybe something on the lower end of the scale is appropriate.

If you really wanted to punish someone for a sex crime against a child, you'd keep your mind open and actually serve on the jury and give an appropriate punishment, not just posture and crow about how tough you want to be on child molesters.

This makes me sad. I understand it's a pain, and costly, but if you were on trial wouldn't you prefer someone like you on the jury?

The judges I've dealt with are not really won over by hardship unless you have kids or are a sole provider who can barely do so. And Kkrose is right about voir dire, it's a good way to start trying the case. So, if you have a legitimate personal issue with the facts in the case i.e., back injury and you've suffered from back pain all your life, let it be known. One side will cut you, but in the meantime, the other side will use you to develop their theme/theory of the case before you get to leave.

My method is to wear a science-themed T-shirt or sweatshirt (though, to be fair, this is generally my preferred way to dress unless someone is making me do otherwise) and sit quietly with a book until they call me. I've never gotten called up to answer the questions. I don't know if the shirts have anything to do with this or they just got enough jurors without having to call on me. I have heard of people bringing obviously sciencey books to read to make themselves look less attractive for a jury. Don't know if it works, but I'm pretty sure it can't be illegal.

Because a trial might require more than the allotted 2 days. I simply can't afford to miss that much work. I know everyone says that but we just had major layoffs at work, and I have some new responsibilities that I need training for. The person who is training me will be departing Friday.

Around here the first summons lets you ask for a six month delay, no questions asked.

I'm not interested in being excused, myself, but I saw two good ways. The first was for a murder trial, where a prospective juror spoke very eloquently about how he didn't trust the system or have any respect for it. He either meant it or was an excellent actor. The judge excused him. Wouldn't work for most cases, though.
The second was a civil case where a woman was suing BART for being injured in an elevator. One of the prospective jurors was a mechanical engineer who had also served as an expert witness. He was asked if he could judge only on information presented, and he said that he couldn't help but use his expert knowledge - so if the testimony was bull in his opinion, he would discount it. He got excused.
What didn't work in the murder trial was opposition to the death penalty. No one who opposed it, even for religious reasons, got excused at the first two rounds at least.

We WANT people who are interested in enforcing the laws and serving the community. It bugs me when people go overboard with their statements so that they get excused..

That was my first time to ever get selected for a jury. I answered the question honestly. I did not go overboard in my reply. I WANTED to be chosen and I had no idea that answer would get me bounced. I also thgought they wanted people like me. But when I observed what people got accepted and what people got eliminated, *I* came to the conclusion that they were looking for neutral, bland, not-too-bright people whose opinions could be formed and shaped. Please holster your weapon.

__________________It is the job of editorial writers to come down from the hills after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
Murray Kempton

But could they say you were trying to get out of jury duty that way, and get you in trouble somehow? They can't really prove that if all you're doing is wearing a science-themed T-shirt and reading a book that has to do with science. They might suspect it, but they can't prove it, since people do read science books and wear science-themed T-shirts for reasons other than trying to get out of jury duty.

I've never served on a jury and would've liked to. I lived here in Montreal for about 40 years as a non-citizen. I am now naturalized, but I suspect my lack of real French comprehension would get me off. But I am curious what would happen if it were a marijuana case and I stated--quite accurately, BTW--that I could not imagine any circumstance in which I would vote to convict someone of a marijuana offense. I assume I would be challenged, but is this contempt? It is my honest opinion.

We WANT people who are interested in enforcing the laws and serving the community. It bugs me when people go overboard with their statements so that they get excused. You realize that by doing that you're stepping aside to put people with lesser moral compunctions on the jury, people who are more likely to let the drunk off and put him back on the street in your city, aren't you? Does that truly serve your interests?

The irony is that I'm retired and I have plenty of time on my hands. You want me to serve on a jury? Hey, sounds like fun. Lets do this.

But the only two times I've been called up for jury duty, the trial was dismissed before it even got started and I was released.

A DA-type person told me once that she wouldn't want me on a jury. Too analytical. She said scientists are bad for prosecutors because we generally have a higher standard of proof than law does.

I have been on a jury once during my one and only time for jury duty. Apparently my occupation isn't such a barrier after all. Also my area is probably crawling with sciency types so there is that.

Looking around the room during selection I thought I had a pretty good chance of getting selected. I looked at the arresting officer. Then I looked at the defendant. As the only non-white and non-black person in the room, I figured... I'm so on this jury. And I was. The bummer was I got picked as an alternate. Boo. All the time and none of the voice.

Oh, and all the voir dire stuff didn't happen in a way that we could hear what other potential jurors were being asked. It was all quiet stuff up by the judge.

But could they say you were trying to get out of jury duty that way, and get you in trouble somehow? They can't really prove that if all you're doing is wearing a science-themed T-shirt and reading a book that has to do with science. They might suspect it, but they can't prove it, since people do read science books and wear science-themed T-shirts for reasons other than trying to get out of jury duty.

The attempt to get through jury duty is pretty obvious at this point. Also, typically we tend to shy away from people who are driven by emotion (if that makes sense) we like people who are logical thinkers and pay attention to how people answer question with that in mind. Though this may vary by attorney or by the case at hand.

Scientists (who are generally logical thinkers) simply do not get picked, at least around here. In over ten years in a department with about a hundred faculty and grad students, not one of us has actually served on a jury.

Personally, the one time I was called, I didn't even try to get out of it. I consider jury duty to be a great privilege. But no, they don't want me.

I certainly respect the important role of a jury in society. But I believe that the process is very flawed in the US, and probably leads to many incorrect decisions. All types of behavioral and psychological interactions are happening between the jurors during deliberation. These likely lead to many incorrect decisions. If these did not occur, it would be very difficult to arrive at a unanimous verdict amongst 12 people. I think a better process would be to disallow any discussion or interaction amongst jurors and then let majority vote determine guilt or innocence.

But when I observed what people got accepted and what people got eliminated, *I* came to the conclusion that they were looking for neutral, bland, not-too-bright people whose opinions could be formed and shaped.

Pretty much my opinion as well and I served on both of the juries I got called in for .

Scientists (who are generally logical thinkers) simply do not get picked, at least around here. In over ten years in a department with about a hundred faculty and grad students, not one of us has actually served on a jury.

Personally, the one time I was called, I didn't even try to get out of it. I consider jury duty to be a great privilege. But no, they don't want me.

One problem we've encountered is that TV seems to have "trained" jurors to expect scientific evidence in every case, and if they don't get it, they'll let the guy walk. Doesn't matter if the convenience store clerk knew the robber, coached him in Little League, and recognizes his car; if there weren't fingerprints and DNA, there'll be no conviction.

I would actually like to serve in a jury. I think it would be a fascinating (and also probably boring) experience. Alas, I've never even been called in to the courtroom to be questioned.

Anyway, I've thought of a couple of ways to get out of jury duty if you really want to.

One way: If asked if you think you could uphold the law (or however they phrase it) say "I believe that a trial is meant to do justice, and I intend to do that. The law is only an approximation of justice. If the law is in direct conflict with what I feel to be justice in this case, I will come down on the side of justice, not the law."

Another way: This was actually related to an auditorium full of people by Neil DeGrasse Tyson. When being questioned for jury duty and asked about eyewitness testimony, he stated that he had run workshops on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Not only was he excused, but the entire courtroom full of prospective jurors was excused because he had "poisoned the well".

Scientists (who are generally logical thinkers) simply do not get picked, at least around here. In over ten years in a department with about a hundred faculty and grad students, not one of us has actually served on a jury.

Personally, the one time I was called, I didn't even try to get out of it. I consider jury duty to be a great privilege. But no, they don't want me.

I can assure you that around Silicon Valley being an engineer/scientist in no way gets you off, having been picked twice and getting to the final stage of a murder trial, where they filled the jury before my number came up.